Was *'s Inaugural Speech A Variation On ......

your either with us or against us?

It's the policy, and the tremendous gap between rhetoric and reality.

and even when rhetoric is empty
I still prefer the kind that doesn't steer us toward a passion for making enemies wherever people fail to admire the "champions" of American life.

True, but the reason the rhetoric is so controversial abroad is that it is understood in context of the Bush administration's policies. It's not that anyone opposes freedom and liberty. Rather, they don't like Bush's version of it, imposed through the barrel of a gun.
For me, the most disturbing aspect of the speech is that Bush actually believes it. That is what makes him so dangerous, far more so than the realists that have traditionally guided US foreign policy.

abroad?
I think our talented guy is spinning plenty of policy precedents to screw us up, wreac hvoc, and spread enough economic DOMESTIC-damage to last us years and years and years.
I shudder to even think of returning my attention to the mess we're making abroad -until it all comes to some kind of conclusion, one way or another. It's no fun to look at, and the Chief could care less about all the foreign policy mistakes I think he's accumulating anyway.
Unfurtunately he's also pretty self-assure that "just hang in there" is the pinnacle of our leadership's economic sensibility -a substantial parralel for your "he actually believes it" category. Anyone who won't admire that thick-headed attitude is painted as "enemy" of American economic-strength. We even got governor Arnold to chime in oh-so-charmingly on that one. :)

I certainly agree with your assessment of his policies. One problem with his foreign policy is that it compromises our national security and interests at home as well as demonstrating a thug-like behavior abroad.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Just a plain simple "I am Chimp the beloved Emperor of a Free and Liberated World."

Well as least he is making an effort to acheive it. Once he figure how to get all the soldiers he be on the roll.

USA is just his starting base. He need to build his troops base here.
I forsee very nice tempting salary coming out soon. Well everyone need a job.

The Emperor and his friend own everything, the people nothing.

I guess you trying to join the Chimp list of owner. Don't worry he believe in an ownership society. You are doing fine and should be on the way there.

Just need to figure out whats good to buy in US since hehe the US dollars is real cheap at the moment. What with all the tax break and hehe legal protection on limit on awards, its plain heaven to do business in US.

For a moment I thought you really mean WE, the owner, I see you mean we the Leader, well I guess you like being the Chimp. Its ok to have dreams and aspiration. Very good for the soul.

oh thankyou, i love that, it has a kind of warm symetry
that i don't quite get from the whole Washington-to-* first-and-latest-chiefs thing. Orwell is nice... Orwell is nice...
..84 ..04 i can close my eyes and nod and smile ...m m m m m mmm

it's not just America vs.
slowly accumulating world-disapproval

it seems to root internally as well
did anyone notice the "god-bless-the-red-states" thing
at the inauguration? I hope I'm not the only one who finds that kind of thing embarassing. The very same day North Carolina's governor declared an emergency over two inches of snow, which makes me laugh because its interesting how people who never live through cold weather can so easily substitute "narrow-mindedness" for "strength".
People who live together through cold climates seem less eager to celebrate narrow-mindedness and not everyone in the "red-states" feels vindicated or even "blessed" by such attitudes at our country's inaugural celebration -which is supposed to help the country feel united again.

The thread was here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2995618

And the article, mentioned in the first reply, is here:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4515

W and Dostoevsky
George W. Bush is a man possessed
by Justin Raimondo

Midway through his inaugural address, when the president proclaimed "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," I wondered if Bush or his speechwriters knew or cared how alien this ultra-revolutionary rhetoric would seem to conservatives of the old school – and soon had my answer:

"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

(snip)

To be sure, Bush's militant internationalism is leavened with appeals to "common sense" and national self-interest: "We are led by events and common sense to one conclusion" because "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." It was that "day of fire," you see, that launched us on our messianic quest, and now imbues us with a sacred "mission" to "spread liberty" to the "dark corners of the earth."

What this means, in plain language and in practice, is a foreign policy of perpetual war:

"We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation, the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."

Translation: We will continue to launch wars of aggression against anyone who gets in our way. If you think Iraq is a big deal, you haven't seen anything yet….

(snip)

Interesting article. I also thought it bore a remarkable resemblance to Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution. It might in fact be deliberate. Some of the neo-cons, like Wolfowitz, are former socialists.

By the way, what is up with that guy Raimundo's picture? The article is good, but he looks like such a poseur.

Perhaps he posed as a poseur, as it were, because it suited his sense of humor. That's my guess, since I can't see anyone who would write an article like that choosing that picture without a smile and a tongue in the cheek. Perhaps someone reading this knows the author and can weigh in on this.

Perhaps he is a fifty year old bald man wearing glasses. The picture is probably a joke.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

"don't question me when I do whatever I want to whomever wherever." It's a blanket self-absolution for tyranny and impeachable crimes. "We killed all those people for our freedom so it's okay."